Lawful neutral bunny is always nagging the other bunnies about how important it is to do things the same way they always did: eat carrots, hop around, make more bunnies. He always eats his carrots pointy end first. LN bunny has volunteered several times to be leader.
Chaotic neutral bunny is always getting on LN bunny's nerves by breaking the conventions seriously, by sometimes eating too many carrots and trying to climb rocks.
Chaotic good bunny thinks LN bunny is full of it, going so far as to support CN bunny's right to climb rocks. CN bunny often falls down on CG bunny, which CG bunny stoically accepts. She won't pay any sort of carrot tax, no matter what LE bunny says.
Lawful good bunny wants people to follow what LN bunny says, and all this irresponsible overeating and climbing business really should go, but it's also important CN bunny is happy despite not being allowed these things. She wishes CN bunny would just understand that LN bunny is doing it for CN bunny's sake. LG bunny also strongly wants to ban the crimes of pushing and shoving.
Neutral good bunny is happy to listen to all of them, and is being generally supportive. He wishes LN bunny could relax a bit. He even has some carrots to help LN bunny in this.
Neutral bunny is in agreement with the one talking to him. Always.
Neutral evil bunny took CE bunny's carrots and gave them to LE bunny. This made CE bunny need more carrots, which he would have to take from someone else, and LE bunny got the idea that bunnies giving him their carrots is a pretty sweet deal.
|
Oh no. If you enjoy killing for it's own sake, it's not Good. Even if you put saving live first.
So you're saying a master swordsman raised in a warrior culture who legitimately enjoys battle can never be Good? Or a Paladin who actually enjoys the thrill of battle and destroying the truly wicked is impossible?
Why?
Exceptions:
-You finished off a dying person, and be content because he or she doesn't have to suffer anymore.
I can get behind this, I suppose.
-You kill someone for a crime that is punishable by death anyway.
This strikes me as a really Lawful response. As in, it has everything to do with Law and Chaos and little to do with Good and Evil.
Now if you rephrased it to "You kill someone for something your principles say is worthy of death anyway." we're actually getting pretty close to the kind of guy I meant. I was talking about a theoretical vigilante after all. The kind of guy who killed really bad people (murderers, rapists, slavers, etc.)...and just happened to enjoy it quite a bit.
Oh no. If you enjoy killing for it's own sake, it's not Good. Even if you put saving live first.So you're saying a master swordsman raised in a warrior culture who legitimately enjoys battle can never be Good? Or a Paladin who actually enjoys the thrill of battle and destroying the truly wicked is impossible?
Personally, I'd say "probably not" to the first, and "definitively not" to the second.
[edit] If I remember correctly, that was the whole point behind Luc Besson's The Messenger
Lawful neutral bunny is always nagging the other bunnies about how important it is to do things the same way they always did: eat carrots, hop around, make more bunnies. He always eats his carrots pointy end first. LN bunny has volunteered several times to be leader.
Chaotic neutral bunny is always getting on LN bunny's nerves by breaking the conventions seriously, by sometimes eating too many carrots and trying to climb rocks.
Chaotic good bunny thinks LN bunny is full of it, going so far as to support CN bunny's right to climb rocks. CN bunny often falls down on CG bunny, which CG bunny stoically accepts. She won't pay any sort of carrot tax, no matter what LE bunny says.
Lawful good bunny wants people to follow what LN bunny says, and all this irresponsible overeating and climbing business really should go, but it's also important CN bunny is happy despite not being allowed these things. She wishes CN bunny would just understand that LN bunny is doing it for CN bunny's sake. LG bunny also strongly wants to ban the crimes of pushing and shoving.
Neutral good bunny is happy to listen to all of them, and is being generally supportive. He wishes LN bunny could relax a bit. He even has some carrots to help LN bunny in this.
Neutral bunny is in agreement with the one talking to him. Always.
Neutral evil bunny took CE bunny's carrots and gave them to LE bunny. This made CE bunny need more carrots, which he would have to take from someone else, and LE bunny got the idea that bunnies giving him their carrots is a pretty sweet deal.
You forgot the part where the chaotic bunnies hide behind a tree and pass around a hemp plant to nibble on or the part where the LE evil bunny pushes the LN bunny into a snare trap so the LE can get the carrot.
Benjamin Bunny's alignment vs. Peter Rabbit's; discuss.
Murder is always evil, even when done for good reasons.A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?
Yes. That is evil. ~shrugs~ just my humble opinion.
And if it is not, then lots of things that are thought of as evil are not. IMHO.
OTOH, self defense... is self defense.
~grins~ And on that note, I think I will exit this thread before I put my foot in my mouth or prove just how much of a jerk I really am.
P.S. - Despite my opinion, I do respect yours Xabulba.
~grins~ And on that note, I think I will exit this thread before I put my foot in my mouth or prove just how much of a jerk I really am.
P.S. - Despite my opinion, I do respect yours Xabulba.
As I respect yours.
|
Really? You sure about that? No other way to look at it?Murder is always evil, even when done for good reasons.A pious man sacrifices his son because he was instructed to by his God, is that evil?I know I am late to this party, but yes, absolutely. 100% unabashedly evil. I know the whole story about Abraham and Isaac, but once you remove the loaded language of Biblical allegory and use stand-in deities, in almost every instance only evil gods ask for human sacrifice. It's the crux of almost every movie or book about a deranged cult or evil demon that there will be a human sacrifice. It's usually the activity used to point out just how evil this particular cult IS.
Sacrificing yourself is either noble or stupid, depending on how highly you regard religious faith, but sacrificing an innocent person for YOUR deity is evil. Especially so in Golarion where Evil/Good is spelled out in very clear terms.
There are really only four options here, and only one provides that the person is not necessarily committing an evil act:
1) The hypothetical god is actually asking a man to kill his son. If this is to achieve some important end, we begin with a logical absurdity of an all-powerful or nearly all-powerful god requiring mortal sacrifice to achieve anything. If this is simply for the god's kicks and giggles, than it is delighting in the suffering of sentient beings for its own pleasure, a decidedly evil past time. Even if the man believes it is right, and mourns the enormity of his task and is not evil per se, the god asking it is evil.
2) The hypothetical god does not require a sacrifice, but there was a misinterpretation of the holy book/prophecy/celestial signs/whatever and it's an honest mistake. No malicious intent, but somebody's life is being taken for no reason. Is it necessarily evil? Maybe not evil, but definitely not good as before taking a life you should be absolutely certain and be given an absolute sign from god. (Which would still bring us back to the issues with #1) For that matter, in most RPG worlds, where gods interact in discernible ways with the world, this is even less excusable. Inaction on the god's part could reasonably be regarded as evil.
3) God does not want the sacrifice, but the church/father/whomever wants the innocent sacrificed for their own personal reasons. Whatever those reasons are, it is killing another for your desires. Neutral Evil all the way.
4) The most likely scenario in the real world, and still possible in game worlds: God/s is/are not actually speaking to the man, but he believes god is. He is suffering from a delusional state that overpowers his reasoning faculties. There is no malice (necessary for an evil act, I would think), but it does no good and ends in the taking of an innocent life. This is the only scenario I could foresee where there is absolutely no evil being committed by man, god, or institution; but nor is any good being accomplished. The highest moral tier this action can achieve is insanity-type Chaotic Neutral.
1) The hypothetical god is actually asking a man to kill his son. If this is to achieve some important end, we begin with a logical absurdity of an all-powerful or nearly all-powerful god requiring mortal sacrifice to achieve anything. If this is simply for the god's kicks and giggles, than it is delighting in the suffering of sentient beings for its own pleasure, a decidedly evil past time. Even if the man believes it is right, and mourns the enormity of his task and is not evil per se, the god asking it is evil.
There is another form like this:
1) The hypothetical god is actually asking a man to kill his son. This is to achieve some important end that can not be logically achieved through any other means. Even an all-powerful God is constrained by logic (first principles of existence, such as the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle). The need for free will in worshippers is often a common culprit here--"I need you to kill your son, but you must do it of your own free will, for all the ramifications that it brings."
and another option
2) In a world where "Raise Dead" and the existence of Gods is considered unquestionable, taking a life is not necessarily permanent.
And that's without attacking the sacred cow of the value of innocent life in a world where deities are unquestioningly proved and provable and thus life has much less value than in our world. Consider all the fanatic jihadists who are willing to give up their lives for their God with much less proof and mostly just faith. If souls are definitely going to go the Elysian Fields or Valhalla, then the value of the life decreases dramatically. But, we won't go there, because it upsets the apple cart too much.
I really don't wish to argue or debate this (other threads already take up too much of my time). My point was to get the poster who wrote, "...yes, absolutely. 100% unabashedly evil...", to think about his absolute position a little more.
Free will. Yeah. Isn't it impressive when a church claims their god to be all-powerful, all-knowing and infallibly good, leaving free will to take the blame for EVERYTHING bad that ever happened, yes, including tsunamis, earthquakes and so on.
Screw that. Plus, it makes the case for all-powerful pretty weak.
|
|
Free will. Yeah. Isn't it impressive when a church claims their god to be all-powerful, all-knowing and infallibly good, leaving free will to take the blame for EVERYTHING bad that ever happened, yes, including tsunamis, earthquakes and so on.
Screw that. Plus, it makes the case for all-powerful pretty weak.
Yeah, you've summed up my problems with omnipotence as a concept. Vastly powerful deities, I can believe in (especially if some of them are dicks), omnipotent ones? Not so much. Especially not nice omnipotent ones.
Well, I can tell you that I've spent a long time (like more than a year) heavily debating the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibeneficent/omnibenevolent God. Free will is a conundrum, to be sure, and a superficial declaration will do nothing to change anyone's minds. And that was just one option out of three I made (though I only "officially" made two, for reasons I made clear).
All I'm trying to say is, you can't just make these blanket assumptions and assertions without more thought. Superficial claims are just that: superficial. There are other options and they are defensible. Even if you choose a side, there are very rarely absolutes in life.
You are not the only one who has thought long and hard about it, Jupistar. The problem is the same old problem of Evil that was formulated so very long ago, and the thing is, the Roman catholic church has never had a good answer to it. Thus, they have chosen to ignore it, hoping it will go away. Too bad it never did. Saying it is superficial is just a cop-out. As soon as you claim omnipotence, you also get omni-responsibility, and if you then blame those beneath you for the state of things, you're certainly not worthy of respect.
I think it's pretty obvious that what we have here is a logical inconsistency. God can't be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time. Rather, what we have is a "choose any two" situation. Thus, we either have an omniscient, loving god who just can't do much, we have an omnipotent, loving god who f!@$s up pretty seriously every so often, or we have an omniscient, omnipotent god who really couldn't care less about us. Take your pick.
You are not the only one who has thought long and hard about it, Jupistar. The problem is the same old problem of Evil that was formulated so very long ago, and the thing is, the Roman catholic church has never had a good answer to it. Thus, they have chosen to ignore it, hoping it will go away. Too bad it never did. Saying it is superficial is just a cop-out. As soon as you claim omnipotence, you also get omni-responsibility, and if you then blame those beneath you for the state of things, you're certainly not worthy of respect.
I think it's pretty obvious that what we have here is a logical inconsistency. God can't be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time. Rather, what we have is a "choose any two" situation. Thus, we either have an omniscient, loving god who just can't do much, we have an omnipotent, loving god who f#&*s up pretty seriously every so often, or we have an omniscient, omnipotent god who really couldn't care less about us. Take your pick.
Of course it's a cop-out. I said that from the beginning. Saying it again doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Being a hard agnostic, I don't have a dog in this fight. All I will tell you is, because I would rather "cop-out", I don't agree with you in even a slight way. But I have no desire to debate the subject because this isn't the forum for that and because I'm tired of pointless debate where nobody concedes a single obvious truth.
It is superficial what you say and your assertions to the contrary don't make it any more or less true. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I claim you haven't thought it through. I have seen so many variations on the Argument from Evil and Argument from Harm/Suffering that I don't care to go into them. I've even read "probability" arguments along the lines of, "If Evil exists, then God [defined as above] probably doesn't". They're interesting to contemplate, but they're not very persuasive. In fact, I have a personal argument that practically defines my hard agnostic position. So, all I'm saying is, your bald-faced bold claims to the contrary, they're superficial statements you're making. This is a fact. And I only say this because I want other people, who may not have given it as much thought, not to take you at face value.
Also, your claim that the Roman Catholic Church has "ignored it" and they "hope it will go away" is also incorrect. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has produced some of the most advanced apologies for their beliefs. Their response has been, pretty consistently, a free-will based response and the idea that first principles (such as logic and sensible conceptions) apply to God. The paradoxical-seeming statement, "Can God create a rock he can't lift." is answered with, "That makes no sense. The words sound sensible, but they aren't. The sentence expresses no meaningful concept." First principles do apply. And let's not forget the "Great Mystery" response to these Arguments from Evil/Harm/Suffering which then leads to the secularist's "God of the Gaps" criticism. ad nauseum ad nauseum
As for arguments against? Well, see, you can't prove a negative except by proving logical inconsistency (as you suggest above), and I've not seen anyone provide a persuasive argument using this logically inconsistent approach, unless it was towards a very specific imagining of God (like the Presbyterian predetermation-type of God); a definition of God that is inherently self-contradictory. So, disbelieving in God is a matter of faith. Neither the atheist nor the agnostic believe in God. But the agnostic also doesn't disbelieve in one. I think anyone who disbelieves in all formulations of God (even all formulations of the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent type of God) are taking it on faith just as much as the theist. Maybe even more so.
|
|
@jupistar:
I've heard similar arguments, and I even buy them in regards to human evil. But postulating omnipotence (even just effective omnipotence within the bounds of what is logically possible) debilitating diseases and birth defects caused by things like genetic abnormalities are extraordinarily unjust, do nothing to truly enable free will, and cause vast amounts of needless suffering, and should be easily remedied.
Any argument that 'God works in mysterious ways.' or something similar in regards to this has always rung hollow to me. Any God who allows such things when he can casually stop them is either uncaring, inimical to humanity, or so alien as to defy applying human conventions of love or goodness. In none of those cases do I have any desire to worship such a being, even were it to exist (which I happen not to believe is the case).
Now, as a polytheist, I actually believe in multiple Gods, but (much like deities in D&D) while powerful, they are hardly omnipotent, and are by no means all working together with humanity's best interests in mind. This possibility seems a lot more reasonable to me than an omnipotent deity who loves us considering the level of npon-manmade natural disasters and suffering to be found in the world. Though I admit that my belief in their existence at all is base on faith, not any kind of empirical observation.
On the other hand, my concept of deity is not outright contradicted by the evidence of my senses, while I've always felt that the Christian concept of God more-or-less was.
Jupistar: All very pretty words, but not convincing. I am not playing devil's advocate here, and your admonition for others not to "take me at face value" is puzzling. The RCC did not really ignore it per se, of course, what they did was make up a pointless answer and shove it into every discussion where the topic came up. Saying it depends on free will is just like you claim the rock god was not able to lift, not meaningful. If god is omnipotent, then there is no problem with having free will and god controlling everything. Why would there be a difficulty? Then, saying "human suffering is due to free will" also becomes a meaningless sentence... and no kind of answer to the problem of Evil.
While the bible has very little of Hell, the Devil and so on, as most of these come from supplementary church dogma, I always found it interesting that someone thought this reasoning was a good idea: God creates all humans, he knows everything they will do, and thus, he creates people he KNOWS he is going to send for ETERNAL TORTURE IN HELL when the time comes. And this is a god we're supposed to consider Good???
Sorry, it will not fly.
And neither will your statement that you have to take atheism on faith, i.e. atheism is a religion too.
|
|
Any God who allows such things when he can casually stop them is either uncaring, inimical to humanity, or so alien as to defy applying human conventions of love or goodness.
Please insert the word 'omnipotent' between 'Any' and 'God' here. I could've sworn that's what I typed, and it's certainly what I meant, but alas, I am neither omnipotent or perfect. My bad.
@jupistar:
I've heard similar arguments, and I even buy them in regards to human evil. But postulating omnipotence (even just effective omnipotence within the bounds of what is logically possible) debilitating diseases and birth defects caused by things like genetic abnormalities are extraordinarily unjust, do nothing to truly enable free will, and cause vast amounts of needless suffering, and should be easily remedied.
Yeah. I've said enough on the subject. Let's just say, I've heard all this before and I've heard the answers to it and the answers to those answers and so on. I'm still agnostic. "There are more things under heaven and earth..." and all that.
Any argument that 'God works in mysterious ways.' or something similar in regards to this has always rung hollow to me. Any God who allows such things when he can casually stop them is either uncaring, inimical to humanity, or so alien as to defy applying human conventions of love or goodness. In none of those cases do I have any desire to worship such a being, even were it to exist (which I happen not to believe is the case).
I don't think such a God is necessarily uncaring, inimical, or alien to humanity. [ugh... I just deleted the beginning of a long conversation - stop it!]
I agree with you in one regard. The God of the Gaps criticism is one I find compelling and the Great Unexplained Answer a hollow one, as well. But probably not as hollow as you do.
See, many people aren't just looking for the answer to the questions of how God can allow Evil/Harm/Suffering to exist, in many cases they're just wanting any answer; one that is reasonable and makes sense. The problem is, many of those wanting one, don't want it for the right reasons, they want it so they can attack it. The other part want it so they can strengthen their faith.
To me, the most absolutely interesting book of the bible, on the subject, was the Book of Job. Here's a guy who suffers and he suffers pretty long and pretty hard. And the writer says he suffers because God and Satan have a contest of egos (I think of Trading Places where the two old Wall Street traders bet each other $1 that they can ruin the life of one very successful and well-educated person [Dan Akroyd] and raise an uneducated, bum to riches [Eddie Murphy]). But when Job complains that he doesn't know what he's done and complains that God won't tell him, God doesn't show up and tell him. God shows up and tells him to remember his place. That he is so great and powerful, so wise and intelligent, that Job couldn't fathom even the concepts of his plan.
Now, I got to thinking about this Book and how it sounded like such a "cop out" (to borrow someone else's civil term) and how God didn't answer the question. But then several things happened for me. Firstly, I encountered a thought which sparked an argument that I found very compelling and neatly ties into this concept (and led me to agnosticism). But the other and rather obvious view, though our arrogance and hubris often leads us to discard it almost out-of-hand, is that of the limited capacity for understanding. We just assume that there is likely no answer of value to these difficult questions and thus there is likely no God. But if there were a God, his capacity for understanding, his wisdom, even his viewpoints and perceptions are so advanced beyond our own that you might claim "alien". But such a person would have plans and machinations in place that might take a million years to resolve, in which we are just one part. You might extrapolate that as important as our lives are to us, they are not as important to him, individually. Sure, that's possible. Then again, maybe not. That's the point, with someone that infinitely vast and powerful, one can never truly understand them anyway. At least, not with our limited minds.
I mean, consider the difficulty and complexity of theoretical physics and consider those among His lowest and remedial thoughts. Apply a dose of parallel computing with an infinite number of threads to support his infinite core mind. Throw in a healthy heaping of "knowing everything" and you have a mind that plans things in the short term, medium term, long term, and with the ends of eternity in mind, as well. Once you internalize this concept of how "retarded" we are in comparison to such a being; how child-like; how Down's Syndrome like, then you will begin to get a glimpse into why such a being might not try to make a better answer known to us. He plays the long con and the short con. His strategy is for the war of the ages, not the battle of the moment or year or decade or even millenia.
From H.G.Wells: "Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us." This analogy is not even sufficient, the God we discuss, would consider those alien minds as simplistic as that of an ant.
"In none of those cases do I have any desire to worship such a being, even were it to exist..."
And so, if such a vast intellect "immeasurably superior to ours" (to borrow from Spielberg's adaption of Wells) were to exist, you might consider him/her/it alien and so choose not to worship. That is your choice. Unfortunately, that has no bearing on the actual question of existence, the applicability of such to the question at hand (killing), or the relative inconsequentiality of our own sapience, sentience, and reason, though we have so thoroughly elevated the concepts into a position of sacredness itself.
Even now, as you ponder this being, some of you might be forming questions and claims to challenge the idea. Those questions would, of course, be meaningless. You don't possess the capacity to understand such a being, much less to argue against it. But you form them because you can't internalize your own inconsequentiality. I understand and forgive you your forthcoming protestations. :)
[yuck, and now here's another long conversation... that's it, I'm officially done - I've said quite more than enough to challenge the absolutism I was reading]
Sorry, it will not fly.
And neither will your statement that you have to take atheism on faith, i.e. atheism is a religion too.
In one breath you say my statement on atheism will not fly and in the same breath you agree with me. I don't get it. Or maybe I'm misreading you and you don't think atheism is a religion that one takes on faith?
|
|
"In none of those cases do I have any desire to worship such a being, even were it to exist..."
And so, if such a vast intellect "immeasurably superior to ours" (to borrow from Spielberg's adaption of Wells) were to exist, you might consider him/her/it alien and so choose not to worship. That is your choice. Unfortunately, that has no bearing on the actual question of existence, the applicability of such to the question at hand (killing), or the relative inconsequentiality of our own sapience, sentience, and reason, though we have so thoroughly elevated the concepts into a position of sacredness itself.
Even now, as you ponder this being, some of you might be forming questions and claims to challenge the idea. Those questions would, of course, be meaningless. You don't possess the capacity to understand such a being, much less to argue against it. But you form them because you can't internalize your own inconsequentiality. I understand and forgive you your forthcoming protestations. :)
Eh, I don't consider myself particularly significant in any cosmic scale (though I obviously matter to me). And you're right, nothing I said denies the existence of such a being, but it does (for me) deny any possibility of wishing to worship it. I mean, if it doesn't meaningfully care for me (or people in general) due to differences in scale, I see no reason not to return the favor. It's existence is a moot point, since it has no bearing on mine or vice versa.
And frankly, I see no evidence for such a being, and unlike the Gods I do believe in, I feel nothing when asked if I believe in him. I have absolutely no faith in his existence. So I fall back on empiricism, which tends to indicate that belief in such a being would require proof, and as there is none, I don't believe in him at all. Though it's a more agnostic than atheistic nonbelief, to be fair.
But even if such a Creator exists, I much prefer to worship the Goddess I do worship, who is fallible and explicable, but still vastly greater than me. Her I can empathize with, and otherwise have an actual understanding of in a meaningful fashion, but still be grateful to for aiding me, and ray to when I am uncertain. And I do believe I matter to her.
Besides, she gives me cool stuff. :)
In one breath you say my statement on atheism will not fly and in the same breath you agree with me. I don't get it. Or maybe I'm misreading you and you don't think atheism is a religion that one takes on faith?Sorry, it will not fly.
And neither will your statement that you have to take atheism on faith, i.e. atheism is a religion too.
The onus of proof lies on those who claim something like a God exists. Not accepting a God is a lack of faith, not something you have to take on faith. The old adage is true: baldness is not a hairstyle.
The onus of proof lies on those who claim something like a God exists. Not accepting a God is a lack of faith, not something you have to take on faith. The old adage is true: baldness is not a hairstyle.In one breath you say my statement on atheism will not fly and in the same breath you agree with me. I don't get it. Or maybe I'm misreading you and you don't think atheism is a religion that one takes on faith?Sorry, it will not fly.
And neither will your statement that you have to take atheism on faith, i.e. atheism is a religion too.
Common mistake. You conflate the existence of something, which (excluding quantum physics :P) is a binary thing (either it does or it doesn't), with the belief in such things. Claiming either position, true or false, is an assertion upon which rests a burden of proof. It is only lack of belief in either position which entails no claim and therefore is *not* an assertion and thus requires no proof. There are other permutations, obviously. For example, I am agnostic (I make no positive claim either for or against), but I am a somewhat hard agnostic (I believe that if the Judeo-Christian God exists, there would probably be no way to prove it). I could furnish you with the argument for my positive assertion, but I don't feel up to it. I'd rather "cop out".
No mistake. I claim that I have no way of proving that God doesn't exist. However, I don't need to. As long as those who claim God exists can't prove it in any way, shape or form, my intense lack of faith (nota bene, not faith in the lack of God) remains.
Thank you for the discussion.
|
If you ask that I prove that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist in order to justify my non-belief in him, then I will ask you to prove that the thousands of other dieties that mankind has worshipped at some point do not exist to justify your non-belief in them. I'll even be generous enough to allow you to group pantheons together, instead of disproving each diety individually.
Thank you too, Jupistar.
If you ask that I prove that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist in order to justify my non-belief in him, then I will ask you to prove that the thousands of other dieties that mankind has worshipped at some point do not exist to justify your non-belief in them. I'll even be generous enough to allow you to group pantheons together, instead of disproving each diety individually.
You don't see that you have a reason for your disbelief? And even with that reason that you still have to take it on faith, in the end, because that reason doesn't constitute proof? It could constitute proof, since proof is a subjective issue of sufficiency, but most people wouldn't consider your reasons "proof" or even "strong evidence".
Let me ask you a series of questions. I don't actually want the answers to them, because I'm going to step away from this conversation, as well. But, consider the difference in your belief status in the following three propositions:
1) I have, in my house, a small metal object looking much like a helmet from the Viking era, but it's purpose is that of a gas mask.
2) There exists, tied to a tree in my backyard, an invisible elephant.
3) There exists a microwave in my kitchen.
You have no proof to the contrary, obviously, of truth of propositions (1), (2), or (3).
a) Which proposition(s) do you believe, disbelieve, or have no certainty about one way or the other?
b) If you believe or disbelieve, is there a reason for your belief or disbelief?
c) If there exists a reason, does that reason give proof or does it simply rise to the level of sufficiency for you to have faith in your belief or disbelief?
Finally, do you think that belief is an on/off switch, or rather a sliding scale from positive to negative; from certainty, down through basic belief, through theorizing, through neutrality, through cynicism, through doubt, through to belief in the opposite?
Thank you for your earlier response. I just wanted to give you some food for thought. Feel free to ignore this post.
So he tortures people to death? Last I checked, that was something like 19 on the Evil scale. Good? Not hardly. This guy sounds like you got a kick out of misapplying alignment.
|
|
Yes, killing someone for any reason is evil. Any reason. Thou shall not kill. Easy enough.
Actually, its 'thou shalt not MURDER', kill and murder are two seperate words in ancient Hebrew. I think the thought was killing in self defense was forgivable (though still 'evil'), but outright murder never was.
|
|
Yes, killing someone for any reason is evil. Any reason. Thou shall not kill. Easy enough.Actually, its 'thou shalt not MURDER', kill and murder are two seperate words in ancient Hebrew. I think the thought was killing in self defense was forgivable (though still 'evil'), but outright murder never was.
That's true.
Although the thought was less like "it is okay in self-defense" and more like "Killing non-Jews is okay, just don't kill your fellow tribesman. Unless they worship golden calves. Then game on."
|
Murder under any grounds is Unlawful. The State has one singular ground under which Human Life can be Taken - you must be resisting Arrest under Charge of Treason. Treason is defined in its simplest form as 'Any Act deemed an assault on the State'.
It means that a Police officer cannot even discharge a firearm and take a life in self defence without violating the terms of this law unless he/she is functioning within its obligations. So when you violate the terms of this law you commit the crime of Treason. The Terms of the Law require that the individual being denied the absolute right to life must be resisting Arrest under Charge of Treason.
So are there laws and conventions of society that allow a Police officer to gun you down without you resisting arrest under charge of treason - and those laws and social conventions are evil (in not recognizing the absolute right to life) - as opposed to lawlessness(chaos).
The Difference in Good and Evil isn't in Laws - it is whether you consider the individual to have a right to be ungoverned by others. It is Evil to Govern others because that is tyranny and slavery. They likewise have an obligation to not determine for others but govern themselves.